Ready Or Not, Here Comes Bernie Sanders And His Single-Payer Plan

http://www.usdebtclock.org

we can't have nice things.

math is hard

"GOP blows out the debt every time there in the oval office"

So Obama was a Republican?  Who knew!

And it's spelled "their".  If you want people to take your "arguments" seriously at least get the spelling of easy words correct.

"they're", actually. 

Lol at the grammatically challenged librarian. Like George W didn't blow up the debt. Managed to do that wrecking the economy. 

<<<it's spelled "their"

lol. no it's not.

try again.

>>To finance the new system, people would have to pay new taxes, in lieu of the premiums they now pay on their own or indirectly through employers. To make the whole system affordable, the government would have to exert some kind of control ― over the nation’s total health care budget, individual fees for the providers and producers of medical care, or both.

Like the insurance companies do now, except people will not be denied necessary care.

Richie,  "control" over the budget means denial of care.

Example, there are drugs that cost $100,000 per year that can keep people alive.

Should everyone have access to extended life at $100,000 per year?

What if it is $1,000,000 per year?

"  If you want people to take your "arguments" seriously at least get the spelling of easy words correct.​"

as creekhead would say "to much"...

"they're", actually<<<

No, it's "their".

they are.

Classic fucking Thom.

Thanks for being you, you sweater vested angry lady man.

fall in line democrats, this will help get you elected in 2018.

bern has busted his ass organizing and setting the narrative for the democratic party, effectively moving the entire country's health care conversation to the left.

too funny – today bern organizes a large presser moving the entire party back into relevancy, while poor mrs. clinton butt hurt memoirs officially gets released. wonder which one is greater asset to the dp?

I suspect we won't see much of Thom the rest of thoday.

>>Example, there are drugs that cost $100,000 per year that can keep people alive.

Should everyone have access to extended life at $100,000 per year?

What if it is $1,000,000 per year?

Edited to:

There are life-saving drugs that cost $100,000  a year in the US, but that cost pennies in other countries. People in the US are unique in that they may have to choose between these drugs, hunger or homelessness, and even financial ruin, whereas in the rest of the civilized world, and much of the developing world, they simply have access to these drugs without having to make Sophie's Choice.

>> bern has busted his ass organizing and setting the narrative for the entire party

Remind me....did he join the Democratic party?

The coverage of health care rarely suggests that public support for single payer is a mile wide but an inch deep. But this Kaiser poll from July is usefully illustrative. It found that a majority (55 percent) supports “single-payer,” but when respondents hear the argument that it would give the government “too much control,” then 61 percent oppose it.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-...

When you mention the tax increases, 60 percent oppose single-payer. This concept does not enjoy ironclad support from the masses. People hear “single payer” and think “ah, that’s nice, somebody else will pay.” Once they realize that they’re the ones paying, they’re reticent, and once they realize that the government will get to make the decisions about what procedures they deem cost-effective and which ones aren’t, the notion doesn’t look quite as appealing against the status quo as it did before. Put another way, Bernie Sanders wants all Americans to enjoy the speedy, compassionate care that our men and women in uniform enjoyed from the Phoenix offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/451305/single-payer-health-ca...

All you have to do to see how well government can run a health care system is look at the VA.  It's not pretty.

He doesn't consider himself a Democrat.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-my...

Thom, ObamaCare's approval number are WAY below the ACA's approval numbers. Yet....

Remeber this classic form the GOPers? :

Keep Gov't out of my Medicare....

40% approval ain't bad for something that really hasn't been fully explained. And most of what you say is conjecture. But you always are soooooooooooooo negative, Thom. 

BTW, your team had 7 years and blew it.

>>>>I suspect we won't see much of Thom the rest of thoday.

Thomas O' Bagenhammers

 Thom2 on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 – 11:09 am

The coverage of health care rarely suggests that public support for single payer is a mile wide but an inch deep. But this Kaiser poll from July is usefully illustrative. It found that a majority (55 percent) supports “single-payer,” but when respondents hear the argument that it would give the government “too much control,” then 61 percent oppose it.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-...

When you mention the tax increases, 60 percent oppose single-payer. This concept does not enjoy ironclad support from the masses. People hear “single payer” and think “ah, that’s nice, somebody else will pay.” Once they realize that they’re the ones paying, they’re reticent, and once they realize that the government will get to make the decisions about what procedures they deem cost-effective and which ones aren’t, the notion doesn’t look quite as appealing against the status quo as it did before. Put another way, Bernie Sanders wants all Americans to enjoy the speedy, compassionate care that our men and women in uniform enjoyed from the Phoenix offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/451305/single-payer-health-ca...

All you have to do to see how well government can run a health care system is look at the VA.  It's not pretty.

^ They're* he is.

*mispelled in a humorus fashion.

I'm no mathematician or economist, so I'm wondering:

Based on the amount of money that employers currently kick down for health coverage (many at $10K a year per employee), if that same money was going to single payer, would more or less be covered?

By the way, that whole, "government controlled healthcare will suck" argument is a ruse for fools. It's currently controlled by the insurance industry, which has a vested interest in sucking ass for the consumer. It can't be worse. Fuck, I have a coworker whose PCP ordered a CATScan, worried about cancer. This guy has a history, too. The insurance co rejected it because he hasn't lost 20% of his body weight.

Do you think that the government as middle man will do a lesser job? And citing the VA as an example is weak. That's a fixable system that ran amok with zero oversight.

..

..

Were they explained that the tax increase would be less than they pay in premiums and co-pays?    Were they explained that the government controlling it would be better than the insurance companies controlling it as there will be no profit motive to deny care?

The bill can be worded so that the doctor has the final say in what needs be done.

>Based on the amount of money that employers currently kick down for health coverage (many at $10K a year per employee), if that same money was going to single payer, would more or less be covered?<

i'd think so.

cut out the middle man.

Our revolution WILL drag the USA -- kicking and screaming -- into the 24th century, a much better society for everybody except those few who get off by lording it over their fellow beings.

Pharma CEO Worries Americans Will Say Enough Is Enough and Embrace Bernie Sanders Single Payer Plan

Brent Saunders, the chief executive of Allergan, one of the largest pharmaceutical firms in the world, is concerned that in an era of increasing political polarization, Americans will become fed up and embrace the single-payer health care plan set to be unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Bernie Sander.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/pharma-ceo-worries-americans-will-sa...

>>>>   Were they explained that the tax increase would be less than they pay in premiums and co-pays?   

There's Bernie's magic free shit again:

 - everybody gets better coverage and it costs LESS!

- no more deductibles, it covers more things, and it costs LESS!

Last time he tried this, his tax proposals would have raised $1.4 trillion....which would pay for less than half the ~$4 trillion we spend now.

And that tax was a 8.7% on everything, plus more for wealthier folks.

>>>cut out the middle man.

This.

My brother is a doctor and a die hard libertarian, but constantly complains about how much money is wasted having insurance companies manage health care.  He also believes that some option for a basic level of free health care coverage should be available.  However, the emphasis is on basic. That means, for example, instead of a private hospital room, the patient gets to stay in a ward like setting.  Another example would be if the patient has cataracts, you get surgery on only one eye.   If you want something more, then private health care plans would still be available.  

which would pay for less than half the ~$4 trillion we spend now

But if we spent less on arms and warfare preparedness, we wouldn't need to spend that much. Preparing for peace is so much less expensive.

weird steve has been reading too much Ayn Rand again

My bad for two reasons, Judit:

1)  by "$4 trillion" I meant national health expenditures.  If the Government will pay for everything, then you need to raise enough tax revenue to pay for everything.

2)  National Health expenditures right now are only $3.2 Trillion, not $4 Trillion.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm

Let me try it again, after accounting for Medicare revenue (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-major-federal-payroll-taxes-and-how-much-money-do-they-raise) and Medicaid spending (we already pay it so it has to be subtracted) http://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/?cur...

Approximate numbers:

US Health spending = $3.2 Trillion

Medicare Revenue = 234 Billion

Medicaid spending = $555 Billion

So Bernie's tax needs to raise:

$3,200 Billion annual spending

- $234 Billion (Medicare)

- $555 Billion (Medicaid)

$2.411 Billion.

His 2016 plan imposed a new payroll tax of 6.7% and a new 2.2% income tax surcharge, with higher taxes on wealthier people.

But his 2016 plan apparently would have raised only about $1.4 Trillion, leaving him a Trillion short.

His plan would add a new 9% income tax on everybody (plus more for the wealthier), which we could debate.

But that still leaves him a Trillion short.

This is what I mean by "free shit".

The math doesn't work.

In order to really pay for Medicare for all, the tax would probably have to be more like 15% - on top of all current taxes.

And that might really be a better deal for every family making under $100,000.

But when you lie, or more accurately, use math that does not add up, about how to pay for things, you are acting like a Republican.

>>>>>by "$4 trillion" I meant national health expenditures.  If the Government will pay for everything, then you need to raise enough tax revenue to pay for everything

How much do insurance companies collect per year for health insurance from the Americans who have health insurance?

Good question, TH. From employers, too?

UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurer, reported last week that it made $10.3 billion in profits in 2014 on revenues of $130.5 billion. Both profits and revenues grew seven percent from 2013.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/26/16658/health-insurers-watch-p...

and that's from 2015, lol. these cats are killing it.

p.s. I support single payer health care/Medicare for all.

Designing a single-payer system means not only covering the uninsured, but financing the cost of moving the 155 million Americans who have employer-based insurance onto Medicare.

That is not a detail to be worked out. It is the entire problem.

In theory, the transition could be done without hurting anybody. The money workers and their employers pay to insurance companies would be converted into taxes. But this means solving two enormous political obstacles. First, most people who have employer-based coverage like it and don’t want to change. Second, higher taxes are unpopular. Yes, in an imaginary, rational world, people could be reassured that Medicare will be as good as what they have, and the taxes will merely replace the premiums they’re already paying. In reality, people are deeply loss-averse and distrustful of politicians.

Sanders is not a details person, though. He prefers to act as though the important barrier is the abstract notion of government-run insurance, turning every question about specifics into a question about values. But the concept of a government-financed insurance program has never been the controversial part. (This is why single-payer Medicare is a beloved institution Republicans swear up and down never to change, while privatized Obamacare is a detested socialist monstrosity.) The controversial part has always been the mechanics of change.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/sanderss-bill-gets-u-s-zero...

Those Sanders folks did pretty well with their big real estate Swindle,  so with that experience they should profit handsomely with their new medical insurance Scam.

The 'real estate Swindle' is the one where they bankrupted some private Vermont college,  and funneled the Ca$h toward some sort of condo/mall development.

Even the Catholic Archdiocese got in on that one.  It's a multi-layered swindle.  Go look it up.

>>>>>fat that his Healthcare insurance companies & big pharma and the costs will be dramatically less. 

But my retirement portfolio is heavily invested in the healthcare industry. 

take down big pharma then where will the new generation drugs come from? the stuff that keeps you from dying. oh govt will cover that too,

Have you seen the huge number of advertisements on TV for new drugs?  It's really something.

Sure is...

The US and New Zealand are the only ones that advertise drugs on TV.

Then you always have the "ambulance chaser" law firm ready to sue 6 months later for problems with the advertised drugs.

Who wins?

Jonathan Chait: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/sanderss-bill-gets-u-s-zero...

Bernie Sanders’ Health Care Bill Is A Huge Win For The Abortion Rights Movement [link]

It’s a great moment for the abortion rights movement and a great moment for the progressive movement writ large. We are super thrilled that Bernie, the most popular politician in the land, is using that platform to be super strong on these principles, and then you see all the cosponsors, all of those champions, flocking towards it. I don’t think it signals a culture shift on abortion, I think it’s politics finally catching up to where culture has been.”

— Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL

not a good direction for the democratic party?

Bump